I agree with the general tenor of David C's remarks, but I will clarify
one aspect. David asks

"What do the fossil record and genetic investigations have to do with
the doctrine of original sin? "

My answer is that they rule out the Answers in Genesis (e.g Sarfati &
Ham) interpretation which is based on the assumption that Genesis 1-11
is strictly historical.
Don

David C Campbell wrote:

>><>"Clearly the doctrine of original sin as expounded by Augustine, and
>>
>>
>consequently a doctrine of the atonement based on that exposition, is
>inadequate in the light of the fossil record and genetic
>investigations.<<
>
>What do the fossil record and genetic investigations have to do with
>the doctrine of original sin? They point to common ancestry of humans
>with other animals, and suggest that modern humans trace back to
>multiple ancestors well into the prehistoric past, but do not tell us
>much about their spiritual condition.
>
>There are several possible approaches to trying to reconcile Genesis 3
>with the paleontological and genetic evidence. E.g.:
>
>God created humans through an evolutionary process. At some point He
>endows a pair of hominids, who will be the ancestors of humans, with
>reason, self-awareness, etc. and gives them some directions. They
>disobey, and their descendants also inherit the consequences of their
>disobedience.
>
>God created humans through an evolutionary process. At some point He
>endows a pair of hominids, representatives out of an existing
>population, with reason, self-awareness, etc. and gives them some
>directions. They disobey, and all humans (including their
>contemporaries and the descendants thereof) have a correspondingly
>fallen nature.
>
>----------------------------------------
>Dr. David Campbell
>425 Scientific Collections
>University of Alabama, Box 870345
>Tuscaloosa AL 35487
>"James gave the huffle of a snail in
>danger But no one heard him at all" A.
>A. Milne
>
>